back to article Microsoft, rivals together fight US govt's cloud data snatch

Microsoft has drummed up an impressive amount of support in its fight against the American government – which is demanding access to the US giant's servers in Ireland. Stateside prosecutors are trying to extract emails from systems on non-US soil using a search warrant obtained in a US court, and Microsoft is having none of it …

  1. Vimes

    And in all the time *before* Snowden? Was privacy not worth fighting for then too?

    Perhaps if Microsoft had spent more time standing up for users in that time rather than spend their efforts building in backdoors into their products (or as the FBI would have us say 'front doors') then perhaps they would have a bit more credibility now?

    For anybody that needs a reminder on how Microsoft really view privacy:

    http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/06/skypes-suspicious-absence-from-microsofts-anti-nsa-promises/

    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/12/microsoft-nsa-collusion

    1. dogged
      Stop

      Oh look, whataboutery.

      Good way to render all your arguments irrelevant. Even insane ones like that one you posted below.

    2. dan1980

      @Vimes

      While I understand your sentiment, isn't this reaction exactly what people want?

      Since the revelations showing how wide and how deep the surveillance and disregard of privacy goes, people have been more wary and are demanding that companies fight for their (the customers') rights rather than going along hand-in-hand with the Us government.

      We have called for them to change so are we then to criticise them when they do?

      1. Vimes

        Except that this isn't real change - it's superficial, and what's more Microsoft probably know this.

        It's not just the companies that have to change but the legal framework that they operate in too. On our side of the pond as much as theirs. The idea that the US legal system can even get to the point it has managed to find itself in - regardless of whether Microsoft are appealing the decision or not - is a matter of some concern.

        The likes of MLATs and the other agreements we have are meaningless if a US judge can decide to ignore them at will. At present we continue to pretend that the laws we have in our own countries are fit for purpose, but this isn't the case and Microsoft know that. They want to hold onto the current status quo where the legal arrangements are concerned.

        Anything else would mean destroying any ability to do business outside the US unless the US itself substantially changed it's laws, which is in itself highly unlikely.

  2. Vimes

    If Microsoft win then it means that they get to keep the illusion that our details really are protected, when in reality nothing could be further from the truth.

    I never thought I would say this when it came to any organisation fighting for privacy, but I for one hope Microsoft lose this one.

    Then perhaps people will finally come to realise how pointless our legal arrangements are when it involves a country that chooses to ignore them at will.

    1. veti Silver badge

      And when we do "finally come to realise" that, what do you think will follow? Bloody revolution? Insurgence of voting for startup pro-tech parties? Parliamentary debates 0wn3d by geeks?

      Yeah, right.

      The war for privacy is like any other war, it's fought in thousands of small engagements, and the end result is the sum of all those. If you cheer for the wrong side in this one, then you're cheering for the wrong side, period. There is no Sun Tzu here, there's no "grand strategy" that involves sacrificing this pawn as a step to the greater victory.

      1. Raumkraut

        And when we do "finally come to realise" that, what do you think will follow?

        If this decision goes "against" Microsoft, et al, I think that what will follow will be a series of large multinational corporations splitting some of their operations and services into multiple individual national-level companies, rather than everything being directly owned by a single parent entity.

        For the governments, it would reduce the ability of companies to "avoid" taxes, or other local laws, whenever it suited them.

        For the corporations, they'd get a single, known, legal jurisdiction to deal with; and generally much smaller market variation to tailor their product to. They'd also, in theory, have more autonomy from "head office", and freedom to choose business partners (local laws permitting).

        For the customer, we'd effectively get more competition between companies and legal jurisdictions; with the customer deciding which jurisdiction is best for them, and not the corporations deciding for everyone purely for their own financial gain.

        I, for one, welcome our new federated corporate overlords.

  3. Mark 85

    The basic issue in this case seems to be the judges and prosecutors

    They apparently have no clue about international law and treaty agreements. At the level of the court, I'm betting the judge is appointed rather than elected. The good ol' boy network strikes again. I daresay 90% if the judges fall into the "no clue of international law" with the prosecutors being right behind them. There's a right way and a stupid way. They chose "stupid".

    1. P. Lee

      Re: The basic issue in this case seems to be the judges and prosecutors

      >I daresay 90% if the judges fall into the "no clue of international law"

      I'll bet they do have a clue, but they choose being effective over acting on principle with regard to sovereign nations.

      America doesn't believe in rights for non-Americans. It barely realises non-Americans exist.

      Reclassifying stuff to avoid the law... someone decided to reuse the Guantanamo idea. Yes, the rest of the world has the same opinion of that too.

      1. Mark 85

        Re: The basic issue in this case seems to be the judges and prosecutors

        Well I did say the chose the stupid way, but thanks for popping my bubble, Lee. Here I was hoping it was ignorance on their part which is forgivable. Yeah, our government haven't been good world citizens in many, many ways. I believe that they've tried but.. hell if I know now. Once upon a time, we did things because it was the right thing to do. Now, I'm not sure whether it's hubris or just plain assholedom. This isn't forgivable as it's intentional not ignorance.

        If it were ignorance, after being told what the right way to handle this is, they should/would have tossed the case and told the FBI, etc. to do it properly. Instead we get a power struggle.

        Somewhere in the last 40-50 years I missed the change from ignorance to something else. I fear that many of my fellow citizens have not noticed that change either.

        1. Tom 35

          Re: The basic issue in this case seems to be the judges and prosecutors

          No it's 100% assholedom. It's written into US law.

          If I fly into a US airport, say New York or Texas and I'm still on the international side of the security gate, I have no rights. They can search me if they fell like it, take my electronics, lock me up. I'm not "in" the US, and not a US citizen so too bad if they decide they don't like me.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: The basic issue in this case seems to be the judges and prosecutors

            If I fly into a US airport, say New York or Texas and I'm still on the international side of the security gate, I have no rights

            From what I can see, that doesn't appear to dramatically change if you get past those gates, especially if you're a foreigner or not caucasian. For a nation that still seeks to advertise portray itself as the fighter for justice, equality and democracy, that is disappointing at best, especially since we *know* they can do better.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The basic issue in this case seems to be the judges and prosecutors

      They apparently have no clue about international law and treaty agreements.

      They do. Domestic law trumps them, because what the law is outside the country where the case is handled is irrelevant. It is, for instance, still possible for the MPAA/RIAA to go after people for piracy, despite file sharing being perfectly legal in other countries.

      What Microsoft is trying to do is changing the law outside democratic process which it should not be allowed to do as it sets a very, VERY dangerous precedent. Don't get me wrong, I seriously dislike the way US laws allows this to be forced, but it's up to the lawmakers to change it, not a bunch of tech companies who couldn't care less about your privacy but only have woken up because it's going to cost them money.

  4. king of foo

    in other news...

    Microsoft patents privacy...

    Apple counter by claiming Steve jobs invented it in 1987.

    Google look on in green eyed wonder.

  5. Phuq Witt

    Good on ye, MS!

    I've no love for Microsoft whatsoever and am not naive enough to think this sudden attack of 'Principled Stance' is driven by anything other than fear of losing money should non-US customers decide to look elsewhere for web-based services.

    That said, however, Microsoft's belatedly standing up to the NSA et al does make a refreshing change from the nauseatingly supine attitude that governments across the EU continue to adopt when Uncle Sam waves his dick in their faces.

    1. Jes.e

      Re: Good on ye, MS!

      Very much agree.

      However note that Microsoft (and the other companies) are not fighting for the right to not release information for the government where a given data center is located. Just for the US (and presumably other countries) to be prevented from extraditing data from foreign soils.

      They want to be able to sell their services all over the world.

  6. Gray
    Trollface

    Deferred to a higher authority

    When this case reaches the US Supreme Court, the likely decision will be to require that all such requests be referred to a look-alike FISA court* for execution.The referral will be secret, accompanied by a security gag order. The court decision will be secret and the warrant will be secret. No silly fussing about, and no upset feelings.

    * (If one doesn't currently exist, the 2015 Right Thinking US Congress will work seamlessly with the Supremes to create one.)

    1. theOtherJT Silver badge

      Re: Deferred to a higher authority

      I really wish I could take this as a joke, but there's been a frightening tendency recently to do exactly this.

      Government caught doing something against the law? Caught spying on your own people, Detaining without trial, torturing prisoners? Citizens and even finally - shock horror - businesses protesting? Redefine your activities as something more palatable and change all requisite laws to permit them!

      Nothing to see here everyone, this is totally legal. Please go about your business.

  7. Franco

    Privacy was always worth fighting for, we were just labouring under the misapprehension that we had some.

    Regardless of Microsoft's reasons for fighting this (and lets face it, we all know that they are self-serving), I am glad that they are fighting it. The US Law Enforcement Agencies are taking the Team America: World Police concept a bit too far for my taste.

    1. Bloakey1

      <snip>

      "Agencies are taking the Team America: World Police concept a bit too far for my taste."

      But the US has declared the world as a battlefield, surely it would therefore follow that they have jurisdiction everywhere.

      Have an upvote and do not forget to file your tax return at the nearest US embassy before April.

      1. Franco

        Taking this concept of US law has global jurisdiction over US firms to it's extremes, they will next argue that all revenues of US companies should be taxed in the US, all employees of US firms must swear allegiance to the constitution, denounce football (real football, where you use your feet) as a commie plot to destabilize the youth of America and agree with such pearls of wisdom as the French not having a word for entrepreneur.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Why not?

          You don't recognize our laws, so remind me why should our lawyers and Judges recognize yours?

          US companies comply with US law. European divisions of US companies have ALWAYS been a grey area in the law. European companies comply with European law. Taxes are usually paid to the local authorities where the company is registered to pay them. We'll be happy to collect taxes on US firms everywhere they are.

          There is a whole separate field of study for International law. Your local Judges and lawyers don't know it any better than ours do.

          BTW, Soccer IS a communist plot and the French don't have a word for a lot of things revolving around hard work and employment,

  8. FormerKowloonTonger
    Holmes

    Providers: Heal Thy-Selves.

    Perhaps ALL of the World's internet search providers could be charged with being complicit if their "engines" hold data which can prevent further death and destruction instigated by our common Muslim enemy? ....and such data was held back?...in the name of "political correctness"?

    The Muslim tactic of "Lawfare" should be turned against those same Muslims who deny our right to live. Right now that seems also to remain "politically incorrect".

    Tell that to the people who jumped from the windows the World Trade Center rather than be burned to death. They're the ones who made their tortured decisions.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    European position

    anyone know what the Irish government's position on this is - or the EU's?

    Also, surely if someone in the US orders the breaking of an Irish law, that individual him- or her-self should face some sanctions this side of the pond .....

    1. Will Godfrey Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: European position

      Now there's an idea I like!

    2. John Jennings

      Re: European position

      Yeah - they came out against it. There are processes to do this - the court decided not to use them...

      But, like the Hague, the US courts ignore it.

  10. Roger Kynaston

    We Europeans should be looking at this as an opportunity. It is time to for there to be a credible non US based cloud provider.

    I know that this would be a huge challenge to break into a maturing market but surely not all the tech giants have to be based in Silicon Valley?

    So, either this company out googles google or out Rackspaces Rackspace or both. I suspect that breaking the MS monopoly would be too big a challenge.

    I am only a lowly sysadmin so don't have the nous/contacts to get VC funding or whatever but it _should_ be possible. Also, I want to go sailing again in three years time.

    1. Roland6 Silver badge

      We Europeans should be looking at this as an opportunity. It is time to for there to be a credible non US based cloud provider.

      Sounds nice and heart warming, until you realise that many EU politicians (including many within the Westminster bubble) think that TTIP will be a good thing for Europe...

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The sad part of this is, is that the US Congress is totally supporting this type of intrusion by the NSA and others. You won't hear a peep out of US Congressmen about securing the rights of our citizens or those of another country. This great information grab by the US Government is the greatest threat to freedom that the world has ever seen

  12. Ken Hagan Gold badge

    Scenario A

    US Supreme Court demands that MS hand over the data.

    Irish court demands that they don't.

    MS hand over the data.

    Irish court declares them in contempt and demands action.

    MS takes no action, coz it can't.

    Irish court seizes MS's European assets, mainly IP.

    Windows becomes open source and free in the EU.

    The US complains.

    My heart bleeds.

    An earlier poster was right. This is about obeying the domestic law of the country you are in. So Microsoft in Ireland *must* ignore the US court and if the US court throws a hissy fit then that's something for US business folks to take up with their political representatives. That *appears* to be roughly what is beginning to happen.

    1. theOtherJT Silver badge

      Re: Scenario A

      Of course, then you get Senario B, where Microsoft refuses, the _American_ court holds them in contempt, seizes assets, restricts their ability to do business, etc, etc.. if Microsoft are going to piss off a national legal system, it does seem likely they'll prefer to do it to one other than the country in which they're headquartered.

      1. John Jennings

        Re: Scenario A

        Scenario C - Microsoft moves its corporate HQ to Iceland! (not in the hands of the US or EU)....

        And if its windows 8 IP, you can keep it :)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like